Is NASCAR for sale?

The only things preventing nascar from realigning their schedule is the constant threat of being sued by smi and the tv contract. Hopefully this sale goes through, then nascar just has to wait for the end of the tv package to make the necessary decisions on which tracks to take away a race date, and which ones to scratch from the schedule altogether. Of course they still have to keep pocono and Dover happy, and Indy, I get the feeling, cannot wait for the day nascar takes them off the schedule.
 
joe h said:
The only things preventing nascar from realigning their schedule is the constant threat of being sued by smi and the tv contract. Hopefully this sale goes through, then nascar just has to wait for the end of the tv package to make the necessary decisions on which tracks to take away a race date, and which ones to scratch from the schedule altogether. Of course they still have to keep pocono and Dover happy, and Indy, I get the feeling, cannot wait for the day nascar takes them off the schedule.
Click to expand...
What sale?
 
Formerjackman said:
I suggested a shorter schedule here about six months ago and was nearly run out of town. That doesn't change the fact that if I were in charge, Cup would only be racing 30 weekends TOTAL each year. The clash and the all star race would both move to Saturday before the big races on Sunday. Changing gears, does ANYBODY running a major sport look LESS excited and LESS interested in it than Brian France?
Click to expand...

I like your thinking and think your ideas are good ones.
 
aunty dive said:
What sale?
Click to expand...
Speedway motorsports incorporated, owners of 8 out of the 11 godawful tracks on the circuit.(New Hampshire, Charlotte, Atlanta, Kentucky, new Bristol, Texas, Vegas, and Sonoma) Or another way of stating it, 1/3rd of the damn schedule.

Indy, Kansas, and Chicago are the other three non smi tracks that can go away, and no one would shed a tear.
 
^ Humpy Wheeler is Bruton Smith’s ex-employee.

If he says SMI is being sold it quite likely isn’t.
 

NASCAR President Brent Dewar on fans, facts and the future
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. – Recent articles and commentary about NASCAR dying or being set-up for a sell-off to a major conglomerate have no merit, according to NASCAR president Brent Dewar, who is in daily talks with the chief executive officer Brian France
http://kickinthetires.net/index.php...ent-brent-dewar-on-fans-facts-and-the-future/

I think I will go with this guy for now, instead of going with the media selling articles for the tin foil hatters
 
I am pretty sure I read online last year that Dewar said most Nascar fans were in Cali so that is why races started later on in the day. Now I don't know and I don't care if Nascar is for sale or it isn't but I trust Helton and Darby more then Dewar and Rosie O'Donnell and I wouldn't trust Helton or Darby as far as I could throw em.
 
Snappy D said:
I am a fan of the series and try to watch on TV when its on, I like their style of racing.
Click to expand...

Sadly, ARCA is just a shell of what it was in the early 2000's. When car owners like Larry Clement, Dr. Dane Miller, Shelby Howard, Harold Steele and Bob Schacht moved on, others lost the funding war, and the NASCAR R&D/driver development programs mostly went away, the quality of competition took a severe dive downward. Most of the time I was there, they were starting 40-41 cars on the speedways and 36 on the short tracks and sending cars home. A finish in the top ten in points was a real accomplishment. Right now, I think you can finish as high as about 7th in points by showing up every week and completing 70% of the race laps.
 
joe h said:
Speedway motorsports incorporated, owners of 8 out of the 11 godawful tracks on the circuit.(New Hampshire, Charlotte, Atlanta, Kentucky, new Bristol, Texas, Vegas, and Sonoma) Or another way of stating it, 1/3rd of the damn schedule.

Indy, Kansas, and Chicago are the other three non smi tracks that can go away, and no one would shed a tear.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with Atlanta, new Bristol and Sonoma? All very challenging driver's tracks. Atlanta after the repave will probably be awful but as it stands now it's great in my opinion.
 
Candace66 said:
For me, the long season is one of the most appealing aspects of NASCAR! :cool:
Click to expand...


A few counter-points.

1) A long schedule increases costs.
2) A long schedule puts more burden on the crews.
3) A shorter schedule makes every race that much more important.
4) A shorter schedule reduces fan fatigue.
5) I believe it was PT Barnum that said "always leave them wanting more".
6) A shorter schedule would make it easier to move race dates and would make it easier to avoid early season crummy weather.
 
Formerjackman said:
6) A shorter schedule would make it easier to move race dates and would make it easier to avoid early season crummy weather.
Click to expand...

Agree with the other points, but it's the late season dates that need to be cut due to fatigue and lack of media attention due to football. This is evident in that the majority of playoffs races are among the lowest-rated of the year, despite being, y'know, the "playoffs". I believe the Daytona 500 should be the week after the Super Bowl, with an approximately 30-week schedule with two off weeks and perhaps a couple of mid-week races if the networks want to try that. Get rid of the stupid exhibitions and they would only lose 3-4 points races this way.
 
Last edited:
StandOnIt said:
NASCAR President Brent Dewar on fans, facts and the future
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. – Recent articles and commentary about NASCAR dying or being set-up for a sell-off to a major conglomerate have no merit, according to NASCAR president Brent Dewar, who is in daily talks with the chief executive officer Brian France
http://kickinthetires.net/index.php...ent-brent-dewar-on-fans-facts-and-the-future/

I think I will go with this guy for now, instead of going with the media selling articles for the tin foil hatters
Click to expand...

We cant challenge him on the buying part but the dying part is obvious to anyone who has followed the sport for a substantial amount of time.

They're not getting rid of stands every year because it's a neat look.
 
gnomesayin said:
Agree with the other points, but it's the late season dates that need to be cut due to fatigue and lack of media attention due to football. This is evident in that the majority of playoffs races are among the lowest-rated of the year, despite being, y'know, the "playoffs". I believe the Daytona 500 should be the week after the Super Bowl, with an approximately 30-week schedule with two off weeks and perhaps a couple of mid-week races if the networks want to try that. Get rid of the stupid exhibitions and they would only lose 3-4 points races this way.
Click to expand...
You would probably like my plan. March first to November first would be a start, and then maybe mid-March to mid October.
 
An internet forum poster snarks on other internet forum posters for posting opinions on an internet forum.

Dewar actually strikes me as a sharp, capable guy. He's going to make excuses for Brian France while he's the guy signing the checks.

Same with Steve Phelps.

Steve O'Donnell is a rube.
 
gnomesayin said:
An internet forum poster snarks on other internet forum posters for posting opinions on an internet forum.

Dewar actually strikes me as a sharp, capable guy. He's going to make excuses for Brian France while he's the guy signing the checks.

Same with Steve Phelps.

Steve O'Donnell is a rube.
Click to expand...
I didn’t comment on someone else’s opinion.

The remark is valid. Which currently profitable tracks will be giving up race dates? Will both broadcast partners willingly drop 3 or 4 events? Some people seem unwilling to deal with the realities of contractual business operations. These things ensure some modicum of stability for people with hundreds of millions of dollars invested in their plants and equipment and fiduciary responsibilities to their employees. That applies to track operators and team owners.

Or...let’s rescue Rockingham and North Wilkesboro and show everybody how it’s done. Nonsense reads like nonsense.
 
I gotta say I would like to see the Nascar season shortened and I would also like to see a cure both forms of arthritis and I would like to be able to eat a rack of ribs again. Ya know these are just things I think would be good and just opinions. Its possible Nascar could keep the same number of races but with some different tracks or add or reduce. I cant see number of races changing until broadcast deal finished and then lotsa things can be on the table.
 
aunty dive said:
I didn’t comment on someone else’s opinion.
Click to expand...

If fans of racing, sports, or any other entertainment business posting on forums refrained from commenting on matters that involve "other people's money", there wouldn't be much left to discuss.

aunty dive said:
The remark is valid. Which currently profitable tracks will be giving up race dates? Will both broadcast partners willingly drop 3 or 4 events? Some people seem unwilling to deal with the realities of contractual business operations. These things ensure some modicum of stability for people with hundreds of millions of dollars invested in their plants and equipment and fiduciary responsibilities to their employees. That applies to track operators and team owners.
Click to expand...

The impetus behind the concept of a shortened schedule has been explained, and has to do with concerns about oversaturation and competition from other sources. It's a broad, generalized opinion. I could banter about which tracks I think should lose their second dates, but I don't feel like it in the context of what was being discussed. Nowhere in the posts you were indirectly criticizing was it suggested this was likely to occur in the near future. It's not. I posted previously in the thread that any such contraction is unlikely due to some of the immediate business realities you are concerned with.

aunty dive said:
Or...let’s rescue Rockingham and North Wilkesboro and show everybody how it’s done.
Click to expand...

Who is this in response to, or is it just a straw man tossed in?
 
aunty dive said:
I didn’t comment on someone else’s opinion.

The remark is valid. Which currently profitable tracks will be giving up race dates? Will both broadcast partners willingly drop 3 or 4 events? Some people seem unwilling to deal with the realities of contractual business operations. These things ensure some modicum of stability for people with hundreds of millions of dollars invested in their plants and equipment and fiduciary responsibilities to their employees. That applies to track operators and team owners.

Or...let’s rescue Rockingham and North Wilkesboro and show everybody how it’s done. Nonsense reads like nonsense.
Click to expand...
Once Monster is done in Nascar, then no national network pics up Nascar, you will see a shorter schedule and different tracks. Do you really think Fox or NBC is going to hand over millions to renew a tv contract with Nascar?
 
gnomesayin said:
If fans of racing, sports, or any other entertainment business posting on forums refrained from commenting on matters that involve "other people's money", there wouldn't be much left to discuss.



The impetus behind the concept of a shortened schedule has been explained, and has to do with concerns about oversaturation and competition from other sources. It's a broad, generalized opinion. I could banter about which tracks I think should lose their second dates, but I don't feel like it in the context of what was being discussed. Nowhere in the posts you were indirectly criticizing was it suggested this was likely to occur in the near future. It's not. I posted previously in the thread that any such contraction is unlikely due to some of the immediate business realities you are concerned with.



Who is this in response to, or is it just a straw man tossed in?
Click to expand...
The explanation doesn’t fly in the harsh, cold light of a business day. A lot of us will be dead at some point beyond the “near future”. The current TV deals run until 2024 and the track deals will match up.

The nonsense is written in the present. Nowhere has anyone suggested that these pipe dreams are for the consideration of the next generation.

The remarks about the dead race tracks were made in order to aggregate nonsense in one place.
 
Mopardh9 said:
Once Monster is done in Nascar, then no national network pics up Nascar, you will see a shorter schedule and different tracks. Do you really think Fox or NBC is going to hand over millions to renew a tv contract with Nascar?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do.

Let me know when people stop complaining about the number of commercials shown during any race broadcast.
 
aunty dive said:
The explanation doesn’t fly in the harsh, cold light of a business day. A lot of us will be dead at some point beyond the “near future”. The current TV deals run until 2024 and the track deals will match up.
Click to expand...

You're taking what are being offered as broadly theoretical opinions and preferences in an extremely literal light. I would find talking about reviving North Wilkesboro to be nonsense, because it seems like pure wishful thinking and not based on any underlying reasoning. I don't think the extreme skepticism and impatience is deserved when I see nobody behaving as if their preference will be adopted. Especially when offered in the manner of "This is unlikely to happen, but here's what I think I would work better."

I find some of your speculation about the RTA becoming a dominant player within the industry to be intriguing. Not because I necessarily agree that it's coming in the next 10 years, but because it is interesting to think about. I'm sure you believe your thoughts on that subject are more realistic than what you are dismissing here. Maybe so, you could be right. However, they could be similarly challenged with the same protestations about how exactly the current structure is going to be overthrown so easily given current agreements and so on.

I hope my heart will still be beating come 2025, and don't mind occasionally thinking beyond the present. I hope you're still around as well.
 
Last edited:
aunty dive said:
Yes, I do.

Let me know when people stop complaining about the number of commercials shown during any race broadcast.
Click to expand...
So with declining ratings, a big player network is going to hand out millions? Look what happened to ESPN when they did that, they lost their shirt. I can see TnT, TBS or similar networks splitting the season, I just don't see why any major network in their right mind would put up an huge contract for Nascar in 6 years......unless the sport is revived. It's corporate suicide to do so.
 
StandOnIt said:
yeah lets shorten the season, the TV people will love that idea, right behind the track owners. great idea. :dunce:
Click to expand...


If the TV people could get the NASCAR package for less money, I think they would probably be all for it. At the current dollar amount, no. As for the track owners, we're basically talking about two, and one of them is the France family. Any reductions would be difficult, but not impossible. At some point, the schedule and everything else is going to have to match up to the available money. IMSA would LOVE to have a 20 or so race schedule, and there are more than enough venues to make it feasible, except that it would put most of teams out of business, so each car class only runs about 12 events. Unless something dramatic happens, this reality is going to hit NASCAR at some point, probably sooner than later. Lets hope they don't have too burn the whole series down and start over to make some common sense changes. People seem to forget that these 36 race schedules are a relatively recent thing. As late as 1992 , it was 29 races. The world didn't end when NASCAR went from 48 races to 31 in 1972 either.
 
Formerjackman said:
If the TV people could get the NASCAR package for less money, I think they would probably be all for it. At the current dollar amount, no. As for the track owners, we're basically talking about two, and one of them is the France family. Any reductions would be difficult, but not impossible. At some point, the schedule and everything else is going to have to match up to the available money. IMSA would LOVE to have a 20 or so race schedule, and there are more than enough venues to make it feasible, except that it would put most of teams out of business, so each car class only runs about 12 events. Unless something dramatic happens, this reality is going to hit NASCAR at some point, probably sooner than later. Lets hope they don't have too burn the whole series down and start over to make some common sense changes. People seem to forget that these 36 race schedules are a relatively recent thing. As late as 1992 , it was 29 races. The world didn't end when NASCAR went from 48 races to 31 in 1972 either.
Click to expand...
28-30 race schedule is a feasible thing IMO, it gets Nascar out of the NFL season pretty much, do that with a few more short tracks thrown in and it would improve things.
 
Formerjackman said:
If the TV people could get the NASCAR package for less money, I think they would probably be all for it. At the current dollar amount, no. As for the track owners, we're basically talking about two, and one of them is the France family. Any reductions would be difficult, but not impossible. At some point, the schedule and everything else is going to have to match up to the available money. IMSA would LOVE to have a 20 or so race schedule, and there are more than enough venues to make it feasible, except that it would put most of teams out of business, so each car class only runs about 12 events. Unless something dramatic happens, this reality is going to hit NASCAR at some point, probably sooner than later. Lets hope they don't have too burn the whole series down and start over to make some common sense changes. People seem to forget that these 36 race schedules are a relatively recent thing. As late as 1992 , it was 29 races. The world didn't end when NASCAR went from 48 races to 31 in 1972 either.
Click to expand...
I’d be okay with 28-29 races. 36 it’s too long for me as a fan and I can only imagine the drivers feeling on that. I would also venture to say if schedule were cut, our favorites would race longer careers instead of being done early like they are trending towards now.
 
Formerjackman said:
If the TV people could get the NASCAR package for less money, I think they would probably be all for it. At the current dollar amount, no. As for the track owners, we're basically talking about two, and one of them is the France family. Any reductions would be difficult, but not impossible. At some point, the schedule and everything else is going to have to match up to the available money. IMSA would LOVE to have a 20 or so race schedule, and there are more than enough venues to make it feasible, except that it would put most of teams out of business, so each car class only runs about 12 events. Unless something dramatic happens, this reality is going to hit NASCAR at some point, probably sooner than later. Lets hope they don't have too burn the whole series down and start over to make some common sense changes. People seem to forget that these 36 race schedules are a relatively recent thing. As late as 1992 , it was 29 races. The world didn't end when NASCAR went from 48 races to 31 in 1972 either.
Click to expand...
Outside of the current contract ending with both tv and the tracks, not sure which network is going to shorten their portion of the schedule or which track is going to give up a date ( I have a few in mind). Sport is in a holding pattern until things can be renegotiated it looks like to me.
 
The Current contract by Fox and NBC was made with the expectation that their cable channels would become profitable. I think the boardroom has made a grave error for the simple reason they don't understand race fans AND the future of cable will not be profitable in itself.
The future fans will do 30 second tune-ins on their phone.
I doubt this contract will last another 10 yrs and if it should, I doubt Nascar will be profitable afterwords.
 
Mopardh9 said:
So with declining ratings, a big player network is going to hand out millions? Look what happened to ESPN when they did that, they lost their shirt. I can see TnT, TBS or similar networks splitting the season, I just don't see why any major network in their right mind would put up an huge contract for Nascar in 6 years......unless the sport is revived. It's corporate suicide to do so.
Click to expand...
I think it'll be a lot like the Monster deal...someone will put up the money, just not nearly as much. The only reason NASCAR got so much from the current TV deal is because Fox and NBC had fledgling sports networks they were trying to get off the ground. That probably won't be the case come 2024.
 
ToyYoda said:
I think it'll be a lot like the Monster deal...someone will put up the money, just not nearly as much. The only reason NASCAR got so much from the current TV deal is because Fox and NBC had fledgling sports networks they were trying to get off the ground. That probably won't be the case come 2024.
Click to expand...
You really think Fox or CBS, NBC will put up even half of what the current costs are? I just don't see it happening, it's too much of risk, the return on it is not promising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom